Never Breach a Condition Precedent
Protective Safeguard Endorsement is a Condition Precedent for There to be Coverage
Barry Zalma
just now
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
Status is online
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE • You Insurance claims expert, consultant at Barry Zalma, Inc. and author/Publisher at ClaimSchool, Inc. 8m8 minutes ago
Leave a comment
Share
Excellence in Claims Handling is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gWrNHJXx and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gW8h4kTN and at https://lnkd.in/gf9GbefX and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.
In Mama K’s Diner, LLC v. AMCO Insurance Company, F082800, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (January 17, 2023) the trial court granted summary judgment to AMCO Insurance because the insured did not maintain a promised automatic fire alarm system.
FACTS
Mama K’s sued AMCO for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, contending the damage is covered under the insurance policy it bought from AMCO. AMCO denies there is coverage because Mama K’s did not have an automatic fire alarm as required by the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for AMCO.
As part of the insurance policy application, the broker submitted a form that erroneously stated Mama K’s had a central station fire alarm. AMCO issued Mama K’s an insurance policy with a “Protective Safeguards” endorsement conditioning coverage for fire damage on Mama K’s maintaining an automatic fire alarm protecting the entire building.
The policy warned:
‘YOU RISK THE LOSS OF CERTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE AT PREMISES DESIGNATED IN THE DECLARATIONS IF YOU FAIL TO MAINTAIN ANY OF THE APPLICABLE PROTECTIVE SAFEGUARDS, LISTED BY SYMBOL IN THE DECLARATIONS FOR EACH PREMISES.’
On December 26, 2018, a fire caused substantial damage to the restaurant. Mama K’s submitted a claim to AMCO. The fire happened at 1:00 a.m. when no one was inside the restaurant to press the “fire” button on the keypad.
DISCUSSION
The Breach Of Contract Cause Of Action
The Court of Appeal concluded the grant of summary judgment on the first cause of action was proper based on the theory of breach alleged in the complaint.
The maintenance of the automatic fire alarm was a condition precedent for fire coverage which Mama K’s failed to satisfy, and therefore Mama K’s cannot maintain its suit against AMCO for breach of contract.
The judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Conditions precedent are important promises made by an insured. In this case Mama K’s promised to maintain an automatic fire alarm system as a condition of coverage for fire. Mama K’s failed to do so, it only had an automatic burglar alarm, and failed to keep its promise. People insured, just like insurers, must keep the promises they make. Mama K’s found out what happens when they failed to keep the promises made.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at
Excellence in Claims Handling is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
RICO Suit Against Law Firm & Health Care Pros Fails
Posted on October 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
UBER AND FEDEX FIGHT FRAUD
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is Designed to Defeat Fraud Perpetrators
In Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Simon & Simon P.C., et al., Civil Action No. 25-5365, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 13, 2026) Uber Technologies, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation sued attorney Marc Simon, his firm Simon & Simon, P.C., and several medical professionals and practices under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
They allege the defendants orchestrated a scheme to generate and litigate fraudulent personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents involving Uber and FedEx drivers. Uber and FedEx incurred defense costs and paid settlements on some claims. The court earlier denied a motion to dismiss, finding proximate causation adequately pleaded. Fact discovery is set to close December 21, 2026.
Discovery showed Uber’s...
No Breach of Contract no Bad Faith
Post 4568
Posted on October 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Party Cannot Designate One Witness While Submitting An Undifferentiated Product Of That Witness And An Undesignated Collaborator.
Post 4568
In Dustin Cain; Amanda Cain v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 25-60442, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (October 16, 2026) Dustin and Amanda Cain sought homeowners’ insurance benefits after a tree fell on their Mississippi home on August 27, 2022. State Farm concluded that the tree caused only a roof puncture and that other damage resulted from excluded long-term conditions. It paid $10,042.90 and later an additional $3,130.08.
The Cains relied on an engineering report and contractor estimate asserting substantially greater damage, sued for breach of contract and related relief, and designated Sean Fee as their sole expert. Fee’s report and a later repair estimate were jointly authored with Jim Irmiter, but neither document identified which opinions, work, or ...
Blockchain Fraud Detection Loses Protection
Posted on October 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
John Earl Madden (April 10, 1936 – December 28, 2021) was an American Professional Football Coach and Sports Commentator in the National Football League Seeking Patent & Trademark Protection
BLOCKCHAIN FRAUD
Mr. Madden was more than football. He was working to establish a program called “Fraud Protection Systems, Methods, and Computer Programs for Blockchain Financial Transactions.”
In Ex parte John Madden, Appeal 2026-001497, Application 18/495,506, Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (October 14, 2026)
The Examiner rejected claims several numbered claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
THE LAW
Section 101 makes patentable any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are implicitly excluded.
THE PATENT TRIAL AND ...
